Sion Jenkins verdict ..or not...

[Beetroot]

verdict

Given that two juries have failed to reach a verdict, I would say that there was more than just reasonable doubt that he was guilty, considering all the media coverage that the case received, although jurers are meant to go into a trial totally non biased, I?d imagine that it would be impossible to forget everything that has been reported in the media, and yet there is not enough evidence to convince 24 jurers that he is either guilty or not guilty. Even if he is innocent, people will still believe that he is guilty, and yet in the eyes of the law his conviction was overturned and he is now a free man. Guilt is for the legal system to decide, not the common man.

we cannot sit here and say he is guilty when 3 juries cannot decide and they woudl have heard alot more evidece than us.

I have always thought he was innocent...

"Sion Jenkins is a proven liar and wife beater and had been violent to Billie Jo according to numerous witnesses"... I missed this though... tell me more....

His now ex wife told the jury in one of the trials that he had beaten her up, but it's not on record.

However, given that on average it takes over 30 instances of DV before it is reported, that doesn't mean she's lying.

She obviously believes he did it.

Which obviously, doesn't mean he did. I'm totally neutral on this - it wouldn't surprise me either way.

He was a deputy head at a comprehensive school but had lied on his cv about his qualifications.

his ex-wife told the police after he was arrested for the crime that he had beaten her and the children on many occasions but she had never reported it previously. Of course that doesn't mean he is a killer but it does mean he is violent. Also witnesses in the trial testified to him hitting and kicking Billie Jo on more than one occasion in public situations.
He obtained his deputy head teacher position on the basis of falsified documents and references.

None of the above makes him a killer but it does mean he is a proven liar and violent person.

I realise two juries have failed to reach verdicts but this means there isn't enough compelling evidence to convict BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - which does not mean he didn't do it.It happens quite often in the judicial process.
I personally believe he killed her on the basis of my knowledge of the trials and the evidence which emerged.

Message deleted

I think that it's possible to assume that someone is guilty or innocent based on the kind of information that is given to us by the media.

A man who had a violent temperament, who frequently beat his wife, who had a volatile relationship with his foster daughter ... the majority of people would deem him to be guilty, based on the way he has been portrayed in the press.

But if we look at someone like Louise Woodward for instance, a young, vulnerable girl, on her own in a foreign country, left on her own with two small children while her agressive, career-driven employers go out to work. There was absolute outcry when she was found guilty of murdering that young baby, and although her conviction was reduced to manslaughter, she still received as good as a hero's welcome when she arrived back in the country, even though she was never aquitted, and she is a child killer.

Message deleted

who are these freaks who wait outsuide cirts and whack prison vans?

relly?
odd eh
have never hwacked a van in my life

He didn't do it.
No way.
Glad for him

I always wonder about these mad women as well Cod. Because it nearly is always women isn't it? I wonder if they're organised (is there a website? Vigilantesnet?) of if they're lone individuals who just decide to go along to the court and scream at defendents. I wonder if anyone's ever done any research on them.

lol
god yes they are mad women in bad plyester knitwear

In my long distant past i was involved in the police.

The public i told very little,we think we know masses with all this mass communication now,but alot of info is withheld.

I think that it is a shame that the original judge who was supposed to do the trial in 2004 wasn't able to do it. He had sat on many important cases and was generally known for his good sense. I wonder if the outcome might have been different?

when you read the wife's reports that she was beaten in angry violent attacks - which wasn t put before the jury you really wonder. wife's story

I do not believe he did it.

Never thought he did it.

This man is very intelligent, calculating and he kept to his story. He had nothing to lose by appealing and maintaining his innocence and juries can be frightened to convict. There was obviously doubt from the jurors which may have been due to the sheer enormity of convicting the accused. I think he was guilty. Always have done. Why didn't the prosecution include his wife's statement about his violence?

The feeling I got from a patients wife who was involved with the case was that he did seem to be innocent. Not said in as many words though.

Caligula - I think the issue is that the domestic violence and evidence from his wife and daughters as to his violence against them, beatings with sticks and punching (child) was ruled inadmissable by all of the trial judges.

Therefore the jury never got to hear this 'evidence'.

It was not admissable as it had apparently not been declared at the time it happened (hmmmm)!

I'm not saying this makes the man guilty - just that there was some 'evidence' that the jury did not have access to.

I think I would probably read something into the fact that his wife is pretty sure that he did do it, it would seem. Not many wives would reach that view of their husbands in such circumstances without foundation, I think.

The cost of the trials so far have exceeded £10m.

It has no doubt helped him this time that he has an extremely wealthy wife/gf who has funded his legal team!

I think there is a slight difference in the fact that BJ was not theirs, bless her heart. If there was even a tiy shadow of a doubt for his wife of the time, she would have to get her and her other children away. IIRC, one of the children in Aus was supposed to be coming over to defend him, but I think the ex wife was not being very ammeniable (sp).